No, but God can foresee his belief and decide to give him a job. God doesn't have to determine everything to get his way in some things.
Saved Or Predestined ???
- Thread starter Pianoworldstage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yet you just said there is irresistible grace. You are essentially Calvinist. How many times do I have to point that out to you to get it through your head?
Which you claim is not ours to produce. So in your world, no one can meet God's standard unless God causes him too. Yet scripture says:
"The apostles said to the Lord, increase
our faith!” 6 And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you."
People are commended for their faith: "I
know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first."
And rebuked for lack of it:
" he said to them, “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm."
Well, if you don't believe the undeniable truth that regarding God's election, the choices of God are determined by God's nature, and to the undeniable truth that we don't know exactly how that is like, and to the undeniable truth that we do not have the same nature as God, then so be it with you. As for me, I'd believe the truth each and every time.
Tong
R0641
And after you deny the undeniable truth that the choices of God are determined by God's nature, you here deny the truth written in scriptures about the disciples that Jesus had chosen, not only for service, but for salvation. And while election for salvation is obvious, you don't see it. They were to be witnesses and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. If that to you is not salvation or does not necessitate salvation, then so be it with you.
You speak of Judas Iscariot. But Judas was obviously not chosen for salvation. That is clearly another failure to see the truth in scriptures.
John 13:18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’
Regarding them whom He have chosen, Jesus prayed to the Father concerning them and told us about Judas Iscariot:
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
No wonder why Jesus did not lift a finger concerning Judas.
Tong
0642
I said: ↑
You contend that "..God died for every person who ever lived." with reference to the scriptures you quoted. It seems to me that you don't really understand what you say there, which I could not let pass without pointing it out here. God is immortal. Now, that is for another topic. I just felt I should point this out.
So, going back, I'd say that, that again is a misuse of said scriptures. For scriptures clearly says that Jesus Christ was sent to save His people, to save His sheep, to save those given to Him by the Father. Does those clear scriptures, at least, sound like saving every person who ever lived?
But I will, as always refute any false statement of yours, relevant or not. You said "Christ dying for all is universal atonement...." I would ask, what is the atonement for concerning those men and women who were already in the grave before the cross? I hope you will not run away or go around this too.
Tong
R0643
You contend that "..God died for every person who ever lived." with reference to the scriptures you quoted. It seems to me that you don't really understand what you say there, which I could not let pass without pointing it out here. God is immortal. Now, that is for another topic. I just felt I should point this out.
So, going back, I'd say that, that again is a misuse of said scriptures. For scriptures clearly says that Jesus Christ was sent to save His people, to save His sheep, to save those given to Him by the Father. Does those clear scriptures, at least, sound like saving every person who ever lived?
What you say there does not at all refute anything I said. For you can't honestly deny that Jesus was sent to save His people, the chosen people of God, those given to Him by the Father. And do you know who are those given by the Father to the Son? Jesus said concerning them "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me". And Jesus said "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus also said "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Clearly, one cannot deny that those that the Father have given and gives to the Son, God had chosen for salvation.
But I will, as always refute any false statement of yours, relevant or not. You said "Christ dying for all is universal atonement...." I would ask, what is the atonement for concerning those men and women who were already in the grave before the cross? I hope you will not run away or go around this too.
Tong
R0643
Last edited:
I said: ↑
You said "Why do we regard no one according to the flesh? Because Christ died for everyone you will ever meet. " I would ask, to whom was Paul addressing his letter? Was it not to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia and not to all mankind for that matter? So, with regards your question, Paul was saying that we don't regard the Christians according to the flesh, for the reasons he gave in the preceding verses. In other words, what Paul said there applies to the Christian believers only for whom Jesus Christ died for, and not necessarily to all man that ever lived and ever will live. For if that necessarily applies to all man that ever lived and ever will live, Paul would have regarded the Jews, the Israelites like so, which he did not, but whom he regarded to the contrary, as his brethren, his countrymen according to the flesh.
You think, by quoting scriptures, and misuse them to say what you make of them to say, makes a refutation? While one can read in those verses the phrase "He died for all", it does not automatically or necessarily mean that the "all" there must be taken to refer to every man that ever existed and will be existing. Context and other scriptures my friend is important. If you don't deny the clear scriptures which reveals that Jesus was sent to save His people, the chosen people of God, those given to Him by the Father, and not to "all", then you will understand what "all" there in those verses you quoted refers to.
You commented "You are just imposing that on scripture because it runs counter to your theology." I think you are facing a mirror when you wrote that.
Tong
R0644
You said "Why do we regard no one according to the flesh? Because Christ died for everyone you will ever meet. " I would ask, to whom was Paul addressing his letter? Was it not to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia and not to all mankind for that matter? So, with regards your question, Paul was saying that we don't regard the Christians according to the flesh, for the reasons he gave in the preceding verses. In other words, what Paul said there applies to the Christian believers only for whom Jesus Christ died for, and not necessarily to all man that ever lived and ever will live. For if that necessarily applies to all man that ever lived and ever will live, Paul would have regarded the Jews, the Israelites like so, which he did not, but whom he regarded to the contrary, as his brethren, his countrymen according to the flesh.
Again, what you say there does not at all refute anything I said. You just keep saying what it is you believe, but could not counter refute my refutation of it. You could not even address and answer the simple questions asked of you. So go ahead answer and make a counter refutation, if you can.
You think, by quoting scriptures, and misuse them to say what you make of them to say, makes a refutation? While one can read in those verses the phrase "He died for all", it does not automatically or necessarily mean that the "all" there must be taken to refer to every man that ever existed and will be existing. Context and other scriptures my friend is important. If you don't deny the clear scriptures which reveals that Jesus was sent to save His people, the chosen people of God, those given to Him by the Father, and not to "all", then you will understand what "all" there in those verses you quoted refers to.
You commented "You are just imposing that on scripture because it runs counter to your theology." I think you are facing a mirror when you wrote that.
Tong
R0644
I said: ↑
And while you say that, you here run away from my arguments in my post and I quote below:
Simple? You can't even seem to give an honest answer to these simple questions: How does God preserve the believers? What does being preserved by means?
Simple? You haven't even attempt to refute this simple argument: If God preserves them faithful, they will be preserved, that is, kept to be faithful. The preserving is God's responsibility, not them who are being preserved by God.
So, please don't run away from them and go ahead answer and refute.
In my post #1595, I asked, "what is your take on this phrase in verse 4, "I have reserved for Myself"? And you replied in your post #1609, and I quote "I do not see this as a reference to the individual election of seven thousand men, but to God's preserving those who are faithful to him."
Taking now what it is you meant by "preserving", your response statement then to my question in post #1595 would be something like ....but to God's preserving the earthly lives of those who are faithful to him. If that is what you have the phrase "I have reserved" in Romans 11:4 to mean, then you are saying then that the remnant according to the election of grace then mentioned in verse 5, which Paul said are as those 7000 mentioned in verse 4, is not about eternal life, but about life on earth. Is that what you mean sir?
Tong
R0645
And while you say that, you here run away from my arguments in my post and I quote below:
Simple? You can't even seem to give an honest answer to these simple questions: How does God preserve the believers? What does being preserved by means?
Simple? You haven't even attempt to refute this simple argument: If God preserves them faithful, they will be preserved, that is, kept to be faithful. The preserving is God's responsibility, not them who are being preserved by God.
So, please don't run away from them and go ahead answer and refute.
Perhaps. That is why I was asking you to tell us what you mean by "preserves" when you said that God preserves the faithful.
It seems quite clear now that you used the word "preserve" to refer to preservation of life on earth. So, let us now, go back to where this matter started.
In my post #1595, I asked, "what is your take on this phrase in verse 4, "I have reserved for Myself"? And you replied in your post #1609, and I quote "I do not see this as a reference to the individual election of seven thousand men, but to God's preserving those who are faithful to him."
Taking now what it is you meant by "preserving", your response statement then to my question in post #1595 would be something like ....but to God's preserving the earthly lives of those who are faithful to him. If that is what you have the phrase "I have reserved" in Romans 11:4 to mean, then you are saying then that the remnant according to the election of grace then mentioned in verse 5, which Paul said are as those 7000 mentioned in verse 4, is not about eternal life, but about life on earth. Is that what you mean sir?
I am not talking about what you call there irresistible faith imposed on the person. I don't know where that is coming from. Another strawman again.
Tong
R0645
Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
That's good. At least you don't deny that it is God who works in the Christian. However, you made sure that you are to be credited in some way or what. You do that by injecting your belief that God's ability to be effective in His work in the Christian so that the Christian both wills and do for God's good pleasure, only on their willingness to cooperate. You see, concerning the true Christian, the willingness is no more an issue, but a given, when they believed and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ.
Well, according to you then, God could only work in you, for you to will and do for HIs good pleasure, only if you give him your cooperation. That's how it goes with your belief. On the other hand, the truth is that, God works in the Christian both to will and to, and so the Christian does so because of that.
Tong
R0646
Last edited:
No I did not. Not if you isolate the rest of my post.
I have shown you in my post that the promises of God were not necessarily given only to the believers, as I have shown in the three (3) reference scriptures I quoted, that is, Gen.3:15, Gen. 8:21, Gen. 12"1-3. And so I concluded in my post #1709 to which you are replying to, as follows and I quote: "And so, considering all the forgoing, your statements, and I quote "Who are the promises given to? Ultimately, they are for believers." had been shown to be false."
The phrase "considering all the foregoing" there refers to my discussion of the three 3 scriptures Gen.3:15, Gen. 8:21, Gen. 12"1-3, and not of Gen. 12:1-3 only. So, please read carefully, as this is always the problem with you. You don't seem to have a proper understanding of my posts.
Tong
R0647
What you say there does not refute what I said in my post, that Paul qualifies those who calls on the name of the Lord, in the following verse, saying:
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
Tong
R0648
I said: ↑
Please ask a friend who can help you out with seeing the difference between faith being God's doing and faith coming from God.
It's simple really Renniks. "Doing" is not the same as "coming from". That's why even any friend of yours could point that out to you.
Tong
R0649
Please ask a friend who can help you out with seeing the difference between faith being God's doing and faith coming from God.
It's simple really Renniks. "Doing" is not the same as "coming from". That's why even any friend of yours could point that out to you.
Tong
R0649
That's what you say.
The truth is, if the Lord had not done to Paul what He did, and instead left him be, Paul would have remained in his sin and unbelief.
You are so into the matter that God can foresee, but then you forget the rest of His nature. As I said, the choices of God are determined by God's nature, not only according to one of His many divine attributes.
Did God foresee that Jesus would do to Paul what He did in the road to Damascus so that Paul would believe? Of course that is what God foresaw, for that is what happened, right? So, how could you say then that God foresaw that Paul will believe so that it becomes the basis of God choosing Paul, when what is foreseen is exactly the very fact that God had chosen him?
Tong
R0650
Yes, I did, but not the irresistible grace that you say the Calvinist promote and believe. So, it is not right that you say I am a Calvinist and attack me as being like one, and tag me as being a Calvinist, when I already told you that I am not a Calvinist, but a Christian, for it is Jesus I follow and not Calvin. How about you, are you an Arminian? Do you follow Arminius?
Tong
R0651
If you believe that man produces faith, sorry to say that you got it all wrong sir. Faith is not produced by man sir. It is produced by God. It is given by God. It comes to man by hearing the word of God. So, faith comes to the man to whom God would have His words be heard.
That's right, the apostles prayed to the Lord to increase their faith. Don't you see what that entails? If faith comes from man and is produced by man, why would they ask of God to increase their faith? If faith comes from man and is produced by man, then the increase thereof would rest upon themselves.
It's not that one is commended for faith or rebuked for the lack of it, means that faith comes from man or is produced by man.
Romans 5:3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope.
You can see in that verse, that perseverance, character, and hope, does not come from within the man, but from outside the man. In this case and in relation to the Christian regarding the tribulation which they are going through in those days and times, Paul tells us that such tribulations is that which produces perseverance, and perseverance produces character, and character produces hope. Clearly perseverance, character and hope is produced inside the man (not by the man) by something outside of him. Faith towards God is like so. It is produced in the man by something outside of him.
Tong
R0652
Last edited:
16You did not choose Me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit— fruit that will remain— so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.
This was spoken to all the disciples. They were all appointed to go and bear fruit, and as far as we know, even Judas did bear fruit, until he fell by listening to the devil.
Those who came before were saved by faith in the promise of a coming messiah. Christ's atonement saved those, just as it saves the ones who believed after his resurrection.
You are confused. Jesus was sent to save his people and who are those people? Whosoever will believe! Again you are confusing being given salvation with being given grace. All are given grace, only those who respond with belief are given salvation and become the elect.
Yet you keep insisting God just gives some faith and not others. If this is the case, can one refuse the faith that God gives him?
This is amusing. It's the classic Calvinist trying to have his cake and eat it too scenerio. You actually say, I assume with a straight face: You see, "concerning the true Christian, the willingness is no more an issue, but a given, when they believed and surrendered their life to Jesus Christ."
And yet you say: "On the other hand, the truth is that, God works in the Christian both to will and to, and so the Christian does so because of that."
So which is it? Is there surrender on the believers part of not? Oh, wait, they don't actually believe in your scenario, God believes for them! You can't even make your argument without claiming that the Christian has to submit to God while at the same time trying to deny that the Christian has to submit to God. It's gooblygook. Just read the verse for what it says, both are true, we have to work at it and God works in us.
Similar threads
